Apparently, Democrats voted down Bernie Sander's plan to eliminate superdelegates. Duh. Since the whole point of the superdelegate process was to prevent outsider candidates such as himself from winning, the Democrats are hardly likely to eliminate the process just after it demonstrated itself to be a success. In fact, with the Donald as the GOP candidate, I can bet you there are a hell of a lot of Republicans running around in back rooms trying to figure out how they can have superdelegates too.

25 Comments

Yeah, those lousy peasants - how dare they think their opinions should actually matter? They voted for TRUMP, the fools! We can't take a chance of someone other than an appointed Party Professional getting the nomination!

Matthew Slyfield:

How dare a political party's official hierarchy think it should have any say in who gets nominated under the party's name? Who cares that the idiot Republican voters voted for a long time supporter of Democrat causes in general and Hillary Clinton in particular?

Possible solutions 1. Eliminate the ridiculous primary process altogether. 2. Give the state party organizations control over who appears on the primary ballot.

3. At a minimum at a provision to state ballot access laws that a primary candidate must be a registered member of the party (registered with the party, not a statement of party affiliation on voter registration), in good standing, and must have held that status since at least the prior election.

They had 17 candidates. The heir apparent Bush didn't get enough traction to get out of Florida, no matter the money thrown at him. Cruz was totally unacceptable, that line-jumper! MAYBE in another 20-30 years he'd have been given a shot at the VP slot - but now? He can go to the back of the line!

"In all, Trump has contributed to 96 candidates running for federal political office since the 1990 election cycle, the Center finds. Only 48 of the recipients — exactly half — were Republicans at the time they received their contribution, including ex-Gov. Charlie Crist (I-Fla.) and ex-Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), who both of whom received their Trump contributions as Republicans.

Since the 1990 election cycle, the top 10 recipients of Trump’s political contributions number six Democrats and four Republicans. Embattled Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), who was censured last year by his U.S. House colleagues, has received the most Trump money, totaling $24,750. The most recent contribution from Trump to Rangel was a $10,000 gift during the 2006 election cycle."

Pinebluff:

Matthew Slyfield:

"Since the 1990 election cycle, the top 10 recipients of Trump’s political contributions number six Democrats and four Republicans. "

I said causes, not candidates.

"They had 17 candidates."

If the party as an organization through it's leadership had some control over who could run, they could prevent that sort of cluster f*ck. Having that many candidates on one party primary can only hurt the party.

The first amendment right of free association must necessarily include a right of disassociation or it is nothing but an illusion.

marque2:

OK, who was better than Trump? Maybe the party elite should choose better candidates for us, if they don't want us to try to find our own.

Interesting how much you love the status quo - Republicans who vote with Democrats, and bemoan that they can't get anything accomplished, because we voters didn't do enough for them. I don't think you status quo candidate position is tenable any longer unless you really are a democrat.

As for Trump - he is less Democrat than Paul Ryan. I hope you don't hold it against me that I was a Democrat as well, many many years ago. Oh and so was Reagan, hmm.

Matthew Slyfield:

"Maybe the party elite should choose better candidates for us, if they don't want us to try to find our own."

If you want to try to find your own, start your own political party rather than trying to hijack someone else's.

"Interesting how much you love the status quo"

I never said I love or even particularly like the status quo.

Oh, and if you think Trump will be an improvement over the status quo, you are a fool. Not all change is for the better.

Change for the sake of change is as idiotic, inefficient, and unproductive as doing things they way they have always been done for no other reason than that's the way they have always been done.

"Republicans who vote with Democrats, and bemoan that they can't get anything accomplished,"

I am a libertarian. Far from bemoaning grid like, I'm rooting for grid lock. The less they can accomplish, the better off the rest of us are.

"As for Trump - he is less Democrat than Paul Ryan."

He's also less of a Republican than Bernie Sanders. Donald Trump is for one thing and one thing only, Donald Trump. He believes only in himself. And the only thing he cares for is himself.. Ignore this at your own peril.

Peabody:

"Donald Trump is for one thing and one thing only, Donald Trump. He believes only in himself. And the only thing he cares for is himself."

And this is different than 99% of national politicians how?

Most politicians tell you what you want to hear and then do what they want. Trump tells you all sorts of things with who knows what motivation and frankly I have no idea what he will do. To me, I'd rather shake things up.

Oh, not explicitly or maybe even intentionally - but we're at a point in the election where there's two candidates - and one of them is going to get the Presidency, like it or not.

One is a woman who won't tell the truth even if it'd be in her best interest, who compromised national security in ways that'd have damn near anyone else in Leavenworth until the stones crumbled into dust. She represents a party that has this interesting little penchant for 'finding votes' in elections that are close enough they can force them into a recount. She represents a party that doesn't see as laws applying to members of their own party. She represents a party that believes the ends justify the means, and intent to do good with massive programs is FAR more important than actually having those programs work. She rails against the banks to woo the ignorant, and takes massive amounts from them in speaking fees.

And then there's Trump, who you seem to loathe with all your heart.

"Not all change is for the better." Shit, really? REALLY? What have we gone through for the last 8 years with Mr. "I want to Transform America" - a bleedin' picnic on a summer's day where all the food and drink is free and there's never a spot of rain in the sky? Wow, what world do YOU live in, Sparky?

Remember 'Hope and Change'? A lot of us are at the point where we're HOPING to have some CHANGE left, because the 8 years have been terrible. "Transform America" - well, he's done that. Just like a drunk driving a Ferrari off a cliff. That's a 'transformation', though it's hard to call it a good one.

I'm so damn tired of the partisan bullshit I could scream. "Oh, I'm liberal! Oh, I'm conservative!" I DON'T CARE because you BOTH have failed to produce RESULTS!

In the REAL WORLD ideology doesn't matter anywhere near as much as results. You know results, don't you? They're what you're left with AFTER the 'feel good' program is funded, established, and implemented to completion.

If the RESULTS aren't anywhere near what you were expecting, the answer isn't to throw more money at them. It's not to double-down on the ideological slant of your leadership - it's to try to find leadership that actually knows how to do things instead of applying worn out templates that do not work to situations they do not fit. To roll back what doesn't work and try to find something that will.

Milo Minderbinder:

Matthew Slyfield:

"Shit, really? REALLY? What have we gone through for the last 8 years with Mr. "I want to Transform America" - a bleedin' picnic on a summer's day where all the food and drink is free and there's never a spot of rain in the sky? Wow, what world do YOU live in, Sparky?"

That just proves my point. Change for the sake of change with no thought or care for the outcome produces shitty results that are more likely to make things worse than better.

Except we've got a binary choice. Hillary or Trump. I'm NOT voting for Hillary because her extension of Obama's policies will keep producing the same result.

Trump's may be better, may be worse, but he won't be wedded to the policies that have us where we are today. If he approves the Keystone Pipeline that'll be a good thing. It's clear Hillary won't change the status quo.

Dan Wendlick:

mlhouse:

I think political parties are stupid for having primaries in the first place. Political parties are private organiazations with one purpose: to win elections. All candidates at every level should be picked via a convention system. Precinct, district, state, national party caucus should pick their appropriate level candidates.

The primary system emphasises everything that is wrong about the political nature of our election cycles. Everyone complains about how everything is sound bites and not issues, but that is how you drive primary voters. It also makes it necessary to have to raise lots of money to run the advertising to compete for these nominations. .

Open primaries are a huge mistake because it allows people who are not members of a party, and often members of opposition parties, to participate in selecting candidates. In Missouri in 2012 Claire McKasskil was a very vulnerable incumbent, but the Democrats showed up to vote for the worst GOP candidate, Todd Adkin, and even put money into advertising backing Adkin over his primary opponents.

The primary system is why we have bad candidates. A caucus/convention system would improve the candidates. WHile to some degree that means the "insiders" would have more "power", participation can make you an insider, at least at the lower levels.

marque2:

Yeah I know, which of the 17 GOP and 4 Dems were not like that. You think Bernie is just doing it for the people? It is interesting how people bag on Trump without proof claiming he is doing horrible things and then ignoring that these things are done or represent all politicians - if even if true, it would make it par for the course.

marque2:

TruthisaPeskyThing:

Dan and Milo, you both have valid points, and your points make clear that there is a dilemma.

Milo, just to have a little fun: since the tax-payer dollars come mainly from the 1%, should we have the 1% work with the "private, non-constitutional organizations" to work out the details of the primaries?

TruthisaPeskyThing:

When I was young and single, the caucus and convention system made the most sense to me. You do a good job of explaining why -- everybody who shows up and is willing to work is an insider. And as a young, single individual, I did work hard and became chairman. I had no money, and I was not powerful in work or in the community, but the members of the party rewarded my hard work without regard to the candidate I supported. Now, as a married person with children, I could not conceive of devoting that much work into the party. I tried to get involved again this year since my children were now teens, but I just could not find the motivation or the gumption to do so. I petered out after the precinct caucus.